"Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> (05/23/91)
Planners and operators of industrial-strength data networks
with circuits terminating in the seven-state NYNEX area will soon
discover, if they have not, that NYNEX told the Interexchange carriers
(IECs) that they will no longer accept orders for inside wiring from
IECs effective with orders bernig due dates after May 24.
NYNEX advised the IECs, but not anyone else in any effective
way, that effective with that date, any inside wire desired by
customers of IECs must be ordered from NYNEX "locally." ...
apparently with each and every local NYNEX inside wire sales point ...
and by implication, thus some entity with an established business
relation with NYNEX. This would mean that whoever is the entity on
the premises one needs inside wire placed in apparently must place the
order. I've drawn this implication because it's doubtful a LEC wants
to take miscellaneous orders to place wires in premises from almost
anyone, anywhere.
The underlying phraseology behind this is that NYNEX intends
to provide connectivity on dedicated interstate circits only to the
Minimum Point of Penetration of a customer location. The implication
drawn is that one must contract locally for whatever connectivity is
needed from the MPOP to where one wants signals delivered.
The MPOP concept is one fraught with problems, for MPOPs of a
premises can range from a protector on a pole on the street (even in a
metropolis) to the basement or some intermediate floor of a skyscraper
to the edge of a multi-acre industrial park. (Indeed, one early MPOP
story in a western state had the MPOP located 26 miles from the Park
Headquarters!)
The approximately 1400 OTHER LECs in the U.S. routinely take
orders from the IEC's for premises connectivity and accomplish
whatever is needed in premises wiring to deliver signals to the place
in the premises specified. In doing so, they place the Channel
Interface Unit (commonly called an 829 CIU) in close proximity to the
location of the using function, and the IEC uses remotely-controllable
functionality in the "829" to perform operational maintenance testing
of the circuit directly to the using location on the premises.
No small part of this is to avoid a an operational jeopardy to
the customers of the IEC, because should they order the "dispatch" of
LEC field repair people to the premises to investigate a suspected
problem, the LEC reserves the right to apply a "maintenance of
service" charge that typically runs $125 and up (often UP) in case the
LEC decides "no trouble found." (And, we all know how magically local
wire trouble often disappears about the time a repairman arrives to
declare, "No trouble found!")
My discovery of this was to get only verbal notice from an
AT&T employee who was handed the "hot potato" on May 22. I have two
outstanding orders in NYNEX' seven-state territory and was essentially
told that AT&T couldn't do anything about it; that I'd have to make
alternate arrangements to get connectivity from WHEREVER the MPOP
might be in buildings near Boston and on Long Island for circuits that
AT&T will have ready there in late May and early June. (Plus, of
course, figuring out what to do about all futures.)
I hope this description shows that a.) NYNEX wants a deal in
which interstate users must be willing to give them a blank check for
whatever in NYNEX' sole judgement, connectivity to a location in a
building should cost (as a one-time charge), and b.) to locate the
last point of maintenance testability (the 829) in places that can
range up to miles from the MPOP, while placing the IEC's customer at
total risk of protracted service outage and unwarranted "maintenance
of service" charges . Users and planners of interstate WANs can
probably recognize the ways in which unwarranted problems and expense
can arise from what NYNEX has popped on us with its action.
This seems to me to be a misuse of NYNEX' monopoly control of
local connectivity across seven states in at least two ways. First,
refusal to cooperate with IECs in providing connectivity to the using
location on premises must be a restraint of interstate commerce in
connection with providing connectivity for unless the user agrees to
unspecified charges.
Second, placement of the maintenance device in the sole judgement of
NYNEX at whatever point in the circuit it deems similarly restrans
maintaining that connectivity in a timely and inexpensive fashion.
AT&T does not come off looking well in this matter for its
limp-wristed way of handling it or notifying AT&T's customers, either.
(I will say no IEC will probably do any better, though. But, AT&T
likes to imply it is willing to be held to a higher standard than the
other IEC's.)
Among actions I contemplate: Informal complaints to the FCC
and the state regulators of each NYNEX company (NY Telephone, New
England Telephone and Southern New England Telephone), plus a letter
of complaint to Mr. Robert Allen at AT&T, just so he remembers what
his bread-and-butter business is. I'll compose those after I get over
the added work I will have recovering from this sudden and arbitrary
change by NYNEX.
Hopefully, other readers in this forum will get some better
notice than I got of NYNEX' unpleasant surprise. If anyone has any
helpful additions to thought or action, I'll appreciate hearing them.
[Moderator's Note: Mr. Robert Allen no longer has any say-so over
what NYNEX wishes to do. And although you may call them limp-wristed
for their handling of this, you must realize that whenver AT&T does
attempt to push the LEC's one way or another, there is always someone
waiting in the wings to run crying to the Judge about AT&T being too
involved with the LECs. So this time, AT&T is handling the whole
thing at arm's length. PAT]"Barton F. Bruce" <Barton.Bruce@camb.com> (05/26/91)
In article <telecom11.391.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > Planners and operators of industrial-strength data networks > with circuits terminating in the seven-state NYNEX area will soon > discover, if they have not, that NYNEX told the Interexchange carriers > (IECs) that they will no longer accept orders for inside wiring from > IECs effective with orders bernig due dates after May 24. You may want to ALSO note AT&T's NEW service I just recently got data on. They RENT T1s from 'someone' (may well NOT be the LEC) and install channel banks in YOUR building to provide you individual DS0 based circuits. This really targets those users with needs too small to justify their own T1s, and they needed at least five circuits worth of orders to start such a service up. This could be a small department in an otherwise datacomm savy big company. This is AT&T **BYPASSING** the LEC for you. The prices I saw were NOT as exciting as I thought they should be, but were less than an equivalent circuit through the LEC. But if a single user needs to get five, at that point a T1 is already paid for. That five may just be to get it in. Other tenants or departments can then add circuits one at a time. The real trick here is that the end user does NOT need to hassle with channelbank ownership. It is also possible, but I don't know if it is offered by AT&T, to get cards in the channel bank that take the v.35 or EIA-422 cable directly rather than needing twisted pair to a CSU/DSU for DDS. It also seemed as though only BIG buildings were being served at locations where BYPASS carriers were well established. They listed the few BUILDINGS currently served. A couple of examples: 111 Wall St. (CitiBank) Penatgon The 'who wires what for whom' in the last mile rules are changing. The LECs that were too greedy may yet get what they deserve (NO business).